Gun Control Proposals as Found by Gharkal

True. But to assume that Feinstein's definition of an assault weapon is "anything and everything with a trigger and a barrel for firing bullets" borders on the absurd. Let's be reasonable. Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

It's not absurd in the wake of what's recently happened. The Odumbo administration operating under current laws elected to reclassify a common but key ingredient necessary for making gunpowder. In 2013, Odumbo, et al, attempted to reclassify a chemical compound known as nitrocellulose as a high explosive, making it illegal for any ammunition company within the industry to transport or store it as they have for decades. It's not unreasonable to imagine that with laws such as those Feinstein wants to craft, administrative "reclassification" and "reinterpretation" rather than Congressional legislation can fulfill the goals Feinstein and other anti-gunners are aiming for: outlawing all guns. (NRA)

It's not absurd in the wake of what's recently happened. The Odumbo administration operating under current laws elected to reclassify a common but key ingredient necessary for making gunpowder. In 2013, Odumbo, et al, attempted to reclassify a chemical compound known as nitrocellulose as a high explosive, making it illegal for any ammunition company within the industry to transport or store it as they have for decades. It's not unreasonable to imagine that with laws such as those Feinstein wants to craft, administrative "reclassification" and "reinterpretation" rather than Congressional legislation can fulfill the goals Feinstein and other anti-gunners are aiming for: outlawing all guns. (NRA) Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Again, in my opinion, your last statement is totally unfounded and is not supported by anything stated or implied by Feinstein or "other anti-gunners".

This day I am not personally acquainted with the status of "free press" in Mexico, but the Mexican Constitution had (or may still have) greater protections in it for freedom of the press than does the U.S. Constitution .... but there were two REAL WORLD issues ... the Mexican President had constitutional authority to unilaterally suspend any provisions of their constitution related to individual freedoms AND

MORE TO THE POINT the newspaper had to BUY ITS NEWSPRINT from the Mexican Government.

So as persons speculate about the goodness and integrity of our political figures and their "intentions" when getting votes ... one should take a long, hard look at the revelations being displayed regarding the past administration's lawlessness and total disregard for the rights of others under the pretense of "doing what's good for the country"!

Again, in my opinion, your last statement is totally unfounded and is not supported by anything stated or implied by Feinstein or "other anti-gunners". Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

Feinstein has so stated that she would seize all "assault weapons". Her legislation defining what constitutes an "assault weapon" is so vague that ultimately, with a tweak here and a tweak there, it could and likely would include all guns.

Another illustrative point as to how Lefties work at violating the Constitutional right to bear arms. Without any new legislation, Odumbo, et al, sought to reinterpret existing laws to advance their anti-Second Amendment agenda.

Obama administration drops proposed ammo ban

In February [2015], the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives began an informal review period to determine whether the M855 bullets violate a longstanding federal ban on armor-piercing handgun ammunition — or whether a loophole in a 1986 law allowing the bullets to be used “for sporting purposes” would apply.

Conservative media outlets quickly accused the Obama administration of pursuing a stealth gun ban, and the NRA and its allies immediately began canvassing their supporters, urging them to contact their representatives and issue comments to the ATF.

On Tuesday, the bureau announced that it would not decide immediately on the rule change and instead would pursue “further study” [AKA Odumbo's ATF "shelved" it until hildebeest could be elected].

(Politico)

It's not unreasonable to imagine that with laws such as those Feinstein wants to craft, administrative "

.. let's see ... "Feinstein" is the "human being" who announced she would not close down the torture chambers in San Francisco while she was running for mayor of SF so she could get the "gay vote"!

(For those not old enough or caring enough to remember the "torture chambers" were separated by a mutually shared "emergency room" manned by surgeons and support staff ... with equipment ... to "sew" up those who were finished with those "exciting" activities next door!)

As a U.S. Senator was she opposed to "water boarding" terrorists?

[QUOTE=I B Hankering;1060897564][SIZE="4"][COLOR="Black"]Feinstein has so stated that she would seize all "assault weapons". Her legislation defining what constitutes an "assault weapon" is so vague that ultimately, with a tweak here and a tweak there, it could and likely would include all guns.

/QUOTE]

Again, you are making a world record leap to go from what Feinstein has said to assuming that she wants to ban all guns.

I am not saying you are wrong. I am NOT a Feinstein supporter. I am saying you are wrong to make that assumption based on the facts.

I love it when you trump huggers talk a bunch of shit amongst yourselfs

Again, you are making a world record leap to go from what Feinstein has said to assuming that she wants to ban all guns.

I am not saying you are wrong. I am NOT a Feinstein supporter. I am saying you are wrong to make that assumption based on the facts. Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

No. It's very evident that the dims will reinterpret any law that's on the books to achieve their goal of disarming American citizens. Dims call it "common sense", but common sense dictates that Dims will manipulate the laws in a manner different their original intent, e.g., the Odumbocare non-enrollment penalty fee was a penalty fee and not a tax until it had to be a tax -- not a penalty fee -- to pass muster before the Supreme Court. Already cited were two cases where Odumbo, et al, sought to "reinterpret" existing laws to advance their anti-gun agenda. Calling that "speculation" in face of the evidence is ignoring the evidence.

That’s patently false.

No. It's very evident that the dims will reinterpret any law that's on the books to achieve their goal of disarming American citizens. Dims call it "common sense", but common sense dictates that Dims will manipulate the laws in a manner different their original intent, e.g., the Odumbocare non-enrollment penalty fee was a penalty fee and not a tax until it had to be a tax -- not a penalty fee -- to pass muster before the Supreme Court. Already cited were two cases where Odumbo, et al, sought to "reinterpret" existing laws to advance their anti-gun agenda. Calling that "speculation" in face of the evidence is ignoring the evidence. Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Irrelevant to the discussion.

Irrelevant to the discussion. Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

No. It's not irrelevant. It's a factual recount of how Dims are working to dis-arm American citizens by hook or crook. It's disingenuous to dismiss as "irrelevant the obvious actions taken by politicians to disarm American citizens. You asked for evidence, and now that it's been presented it's not going away.

BTW, another subterfuge employed Odumbo, et al, was Odumbo and Holder's "Operation Choke Point"; wherein, Odumbo's DOJ and FDIC sent enforcement teams to banks to intimidate them into ending their relationships with the gun and ammunition manufacturers. "The clients of these banks report that, without warning, they are notified by their banks that their banking relationship has ended, and they will need to find a new place to bank." A fascist procedure highly lauded by Feinstein and Schumer who seek to disarm American citizens by hook or crook.

No. It's not irrelevant. It's a factual recount of how Dims are working to dis-arm American citizens by hook or crook. It's disingenuous to dismiss as "irrelevant the obvious actions taken by politicians to disarm American citizens. You asked for evidence, and now that it's been presented it's not going away.

BTW, another subterfuge employed Odumbo, et al, was Odumbo and Holder's "Operation Choke Point"; wherein, Odumbo's DOJ and FDIC sent enforcement teams to banks to intimidate them into ending their relationships with the gun and ammunition manufacturers. "The clients of these banks report that, without warning, they are notified by their banks that their banking relationship has ended, and they will need to find a new place to bank." A fascist procedure highly lauded by Feinstein and Schumer who seek to disarm American citizens by hook or crook. Originally Posted by I B Hankering

It's irrelevant because the discussion is about taking ALL guns away from law-abiding citizens and NOT about restricting access to some guns for some people.

You've turned what was a fairly thoughtful discussion into one in which you are rambling on about "Dims" and "Odumbo" and Feinstein and Shumer being fascists.

You may continue on but I am done responding to your irrelevant rants.

I love it when you trump huggers talk a bunch of shit amongst yourselfs Originally Posted by Tsmokies

I only have one "self" so I don't do that.

It's irrelevant because the discussion is about taking ALL guns away from law-abiding citizens and NOT about restricting access to some guns for some people.

You've turned what was a fairly thoughtful discussion into one in which you are rambling on about "Dims" and "Odumbo" and Feinstein and Shumer being fascists.

You may continue on but I am done responding to your irrelevant rants. Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

Taking all of the guns away was exactly the intent of the Odumbo administration when it "reinterpreted" extant laws for the purpose of disarming American citizens.

It's irrelevant because the discussion is about taking ALL guns away from law-abiding citizens and NOT about restricting access to some guns for some people.
Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

Actually that's the only "discussion" ...

... there are laws "restricting access to some guns for some people" already on "the books" .... and since the anti-gun crowd have realized that laws don't help .... they are "toying" with the notion of banning ALL GUNS from citizens based upon some flawed idea that a gun ban would end "gun violence," while ignoring the realities of those countries who have strict gun controls but rampant violence.

The "discussion" totally ignores the "pesky" 2nd amendment.

https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/103/hjres81/text

H.J.Res. 81 (103rd): Gun Control (Repeal the 2nd Amendment)